Section 24 of the constitution and renewable natural resources.

 Greetings and thanx for reading here.

In my last post I said I would discuss section 24 of the constitution, so here we are.... 

Section 24 of the South African Constitution covers our Environmental rights. Section 24 is in  chapter 2, the bill of rights. This section covers both natural folks rights as well as juristic folks rights.

Quote section 24 of the South African  Constitution

 Environment (section 24)

Everyone has the right ­

to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that ­

prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

promote conservation; and

secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. 

END QUOTE

There are some serious economic rights, social rights and other rights  that come along as Ryders which are sometimes not that obvious, but that does  mean that they should be ignored but rather that these are special cases that need extra vigilance from the holders of these rights.

In our case here in the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands park and surrounding areas, the economic, social and  Environmental rights are very entertained, and #Section24 of the South African Constitution caters for all these rights, and a few other hidden rights which we will be discussing in more detail within the social media environment within the coming weeks as we slowly start to dismantle the Andrew Zaloumis management erra public perception management STRATEGIES, where the use of natural renewable resources were seen as property of the IWPA and not for public consumption or public utalisaion. 

   if we take a closer look at section 24 in the South African Constitution,  then we may read chapter 2, section 24 (b) iii as "Every one has the right to have the environment protected, for benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative measures that secure ecological sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development 

Now the key here is the the aim, which  is to ensure that local communities have the right to make use of natural resources, while justifiable social development and economic issues are also included as special Ryders.

Here at Nibela these economic and social rights have been violated and erroded by the environmental policies and practices of the Andrew Zaloumis estuary management STRATEGIES as approved and implemented by the ministers instructions through the actions of the IWPA or iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority.

So our beef about section 24 of the South African Constitution is with the minister of environmental affairs, coz this is an environmental issue, where bad faith and poor oversight has been applied.

Basically our economic rights as associated with the trade of the natural renewable resources of lake St Lucia and the St Lucia Estuary systems have been erroded past the point of sustainability, as a result of the  collapse of the biodiversity within the St. Lucia estuary and lake systems. 

This collapse of the natural renewable resources within the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park is as a direct result of the poor / bad estuary management strategies of the Andrew Zaloumis management team during their reign of terror as the IWPA MANAGEMENT TEAM 

The current managent team at the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority have rather different views than the past (Andrew Zaloumis) management team at the IWPA. Their attempts to fix the issues around community benificiation are not going un-noticed, but they are very slow, and also rather subtle and in the background.  These attempts to restore community access rights are not very  public, and that needs to change. 

Our collective rights in terms of section 24 of the South African Constitution need to be investigated, and we as citizens of South Need to be vigilant when it comes to economic rights associated with harvesting of natural renewable resources

This is a complicated matter, which is headed for the constitutional court in the not to distant future.

Please comment and share further.

Regards  #Frankie2Socks

 

the 4U2FISH campaign is slowly gaining momentum

The 4U2FISH campaign is in place to ensure that the domestic tourism market associated with fishing, hunting and collecting of natural renewable resources is taken seriously by the tourism bodies and businesses within Umkhanyakude District Municipality.

Fishermen and their crews have a bad rap here in St. Lucia and they are not really welcome at most tourism establishments within the village of St. Lucia. This change of attitude by the local tourism businesses did not happen in 24 hours, but was a slow process that was managed and driven, through elegant high level PUBLLIC PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT by the IWPA (iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority) in their very devious and sneaky efforts to ensure that the waters of lake St. Lucia change from a salt water estuary system to a fresh water lake system, so that dune mining may be seen as an ecologically and economically  viable option when the mining companies step into the picture.

Before our area, the old Maputuland Coast, was declared as a world heritage site in  December 1999, as an apparent ploy to prevent mining of lake St. Lucia and the St. Lucia Estuary System, fisher folks were the core base of the St. Lucia tourism industry, and were most welcome as paying guests in St. Lucia.  The St. Lucia tourism industry sustained  three caravan parks that were fully functional and full every week end.  If one wanted to visit Cape Vidal over the week end, one would need to be in the line at the gate before 1 AM in the morning, to ensure that you were one of the few allowed into the park, as the numbers were limited, and many people wanted to visit the park.

We need to remember that the area was declared as a park long before the idea of a world heritage site was thought of, and the old NPB (Natal Parks Board ) ran the park as a farm, which supplied fish, prawns and many other natural renewable resources for the folks living within Umkhanyakude district municipality.

in 1998 our beaches were busy, businesses were flourishing and tourism within Umkhanyakude was a truly big thing. The government and big business within South Africa were all excited and looking for ways to expand this impact and increase the economic impact of tourism associated with recreational beach  use.   Unfortunately there were also some folks who had other ideas, like mining.........

Domestic tourism within Umkhanyakude was a truly huge thing, and there was an awful lot of interest in the economics associated with an expanding tourism base connected  with recreational activities and the eco tourism base of our beaches and the St. Lucia estuary system.

CONSUMPTIVE TOURISM was flourishing and everybody was making money.  The home stay style tourism businesses within the coastal belt between Mbaswane and Manguzi was awash with visitors from Joburg, Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Pietersburg and other areas of the Transvaal, the Freestate and the rest of KZN.  Domestic tourism within Umkhanyakude was a big thing.

Unfortunately for us, the big mining companies wanted to, and still want to, mine the lake and surrounding sand dunes for titanium and other minerals.  For them (the mining industry ) to succeed they needed to ensure that the domestic tourism industry collapsed, and would thus be unable to challenge the mining of our non renewable resources within the rich mineral sands that have been deposited over the years within the flood plains and surrounding sand dunes of the greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park. hence the 4x4 ban which did its job and hurt domestic tourism industry, causing some 20 000 job losses

Mining is a short term financial income strategy, but tourism is a long term business model that will employ many more folks than the mining industry, and have a much wider tax  base, that will also be around for many years.  Those who want to mine our sand dunes and water ways within the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands park have understood this for a long time, but have always been looking at ways to get in, mine and leave without spending large volumes of cash on REHABILITATION like they are currently doing  in the areas just South Of Mapelane.   We need to remember that they started mining our sand dunes in 1974, just North of Richards Bay, and that this mining has ensured the growth of Richards bay into the thriving industrial port that exists in Richards Bay today.

So they have been mining our sand dunes along the east coast of KZN South of Richards bay for more than 45 years.  In this time these mining houses have made huge unthinkable volumes of cash, and their options are now running out.  We need to remember that the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park was declared as a WORLD HERITAGE SITE in December 1999, from within the well managed smoke screen of  public intent to prevent the mining of our beautiful tourism destinations along the then MAPUTULAND COAST.  The first thing that the new authority did was to ensure that the mouth to the St. Lucia Estuary was closed, and stayed closed.  The IWPA did not exist at that time, but ........

The Greater St. Lucia wetlands Park Authority was renamed to the iSimangaliso Wetland park in 2007, but this organisation has been pushing hard to keep the St. Lucia Estuary Mouth closed and ensure that the ocean does not connect to the lake and estuary system.  The so called REHABILITATION which the IWPA undertook in early 2017, where they connected the Umfolozi River to the St. Lucia Lake System, by passing the natural filter system of the Umfolozi Flood Plains, has ensured that the lake has silted up, and that there is no way that the estuary will be able to have a natural breach ever again.  The tremendous amount of FRESH CLAY that was compacted by the bulldozers that pushed the dredger spoil into the Indian Ocean  during this so called rehabilitation process is a real problem, as this introduced clay layer forms a PLUG that will not easily be eroded away, as sea sand would have been.


The residents of St. Lucia tried to talk about this during the public participation process but were closed down very quickly by the scientific component of the IWPA  estuary management team.  I have been saying that the IWPA is preparing the St. Lucia Estuary and lake systems for mining for some time now, as the mining technology does not allow for mining in a saline (salt water ) system, and thus the new fresh look of the lake and estuary system is good for the mining industry.

Then there are the many cases where the IWPA closed down the informal home stay / back yard camp sites within the Umhlabuyalingana and BIG 5 / Hlabisa municipalities. This happened in a very sneaky and devious manner around the same time that the 4x4 ban was introduced. This process coincided with the very big drive by the national government to close down coastal tourism businesses that did not conform to unrealistically high criteria that  they demanded. The Transkie coastal belt suffered extensive losses within their rather active tourism industry which collapsed as a result of these rather nasty closures of informal and semi formal tourism businesses.

With some hind sight and lots of digging around to try and discover where our business within Umkhanyakude disappeared to when our beaches were closed to reasonable motor vehicle traffic way back in 2001 / 2002, one can very easily join the dots and come to some rather disturbing conclusions.  The Occasional Paper 20  by KZN Tourism which discusses the losses associated with the #4x4ban, alledges that more than 20 000 folks within Umkhanyakude district municipality  lost their economic opportunities as a knock on impact of the 4x4ban, and goes on to say that more research is needed as there appear to be other mitigating circumstances which they were unable to pinpoint with the limited budget and resources at their disposal.

The fact that international tourism boomed and flourished after the area was declared a world heritage site, was expected, and if this did not materialise, then something would be very wrong.  The collapse of the domestic tourism market within Umkhanyakude district municipality on the other hand, was caused by the mismanagement of the physical environment  and related renewable resources through the actions, activities, policies and management style of the IWPA.

These  guys  (The IWPA ) have no intention of ever fixing the ecological problems  and economic impacts associated with a dysfunctional estuary 

Please comment here and leave your views and opinions

#Frankie2Socks #4u2fish

Biodiversity problems in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park

The current situation within the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park is not one that folks want to hear about,  as it is both  depressing and infuriating at the same time.  The main  issue is that the IWPA or iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority have been mandated to manage the iSimangaliso Wetland Park  World Heritage Site, in terms of the WHCA  ( World Heritage Convention Act ) and associated legislations, but have failed to take local communities into consideration, causing many strange problems, with the largest impact being the dramatic collapse of the biodiversity within Lake St. Lucia and the St. Lucia Estuary system.

The knock on impacts of this collapsed biodiversity are quite substantial, and the negative impact on the Umkhanyakude district municipality is growing at an alarming rate as communities no longer have access to the vast renewable resources that sustained them in the past. Expanding Poaching,  excessive harvesting of wild fruits, and generally living off the land in a non sustainable manner are also part  of the impacts associated with the collapse of the biodiversity within the St. Lucia Estuary System and associated waterways within the Umkhanyakude.

The tourism losses that are directly connected to the loss of biodiversity within the St. Lucia Estuary system and surrounding rural areas is substantial, as the boating public along with their friends, family and associates are no longer visiting our region.  The passing trade associated with the boating fraternity is quite substantial, and this really needs to be addressed at 1) National level, 2) Provincial level, 3) district and local municipally level.

The 4U2FISH campaign is in place to address these issues and help government connect the dots between poor biodiversity management within the iSimangaliso Wetland park and poverty on the ground in the Umkhanyakude district municipality.  The fact that local communities are excluded from the many mandated planning procedures within the IWP is of grave concern.  Our collective rights in terms of section 24 of the   South African Constitution are quite extensive and include but are not restricted to :

1) economic rights
2) social rights
3) land access rights
4) access rights to renewable natural resources

These are very important rights that communities have lost due to the manner in which the IWPA administer their mandate to manage the first world heritage site in South Africa. There are many acts and a host of related legislations which mandate how the park should be managed, but the IWPA has acted as if their decisions are outside of the South African laws, and they are not responsible to the South African public for the economic and social devastation  that follows their actions, policies, activities and decisions.

The 4U2FISH campaign has been established to mobilise the public into taking actions to remedy the situation.  This public mobilisation has become essential because the IWPA management policies some how seem to exclude public participation processes that are mandated in terms of various acts and associated legislations with the NEMA or National Environmental Management Act being the true tool that we need to use, in conjunction with SECTION 24 of the South African Constitution as quoted below.

Quote
Environment

Everyone has the right

a. to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

b. to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that

i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

ii. promote conservation; and

iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

End quote....

So effectively section 24 \  b \ iii states     

Everyone has the right to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. 

Now the rights in the bill of rights are not exclusive to natural persons,  and JURISTIC PERSONS also have recourse in terms of these rights.  This implies that the various impacted communities which have lost economic, social and environmental rights as a consequence of the management strategies implemented by the IWPA have recourse in terms of section 24 of the South African constitution.

Please join us in the debate around this issue on our FACE BOOK PAGE

#Frankie2Socks
#4U2FISH
#RestoreStLucia
#HerstelStLucia